OPINION
{1} Defendant Hector Torres was sentenced in 1988 pursuant to a plea agreement for escape from the penitentiary and for his status as a habitual offender. The district court made several legal errors in ordering Defendant’s sentence that resulted in an unlawfully light term of imprisonment. The State did not discover the errors until 2006, at a time when Defendant was nearing his release. The State filed a Rule 5-801 (A) NMRA motion, requesting an increase ofDefendant’s sentence by an additional eight years. The district court granted the State’s request, and Defendant appealed on constitutional grounds, arguing that altering his sentence nearly two decades after imposition violated double jeopardy and due process. Without addressing the constitutional issues, we reverse on jurisdictional grounds. Having reviewed the supplemental briefs requested on jurisdiction, and in light of the history and language of Rule 5-801(A), we hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction to correct Defendant’s illegal sentence. We therefore remand to the district court to reinstate Defendant’s sentence as originally imposed in 1988.
BACKGROUND
{2} On April 25, 1988, Defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge of escape from penitentiary, as prohibited by NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-9 (1963), for his participation in a group-inmate escape from the New Mexico Department of Corrections in Santa Fe. At the time of Defendant’s escape, he was serving multiple sentences related to a thirteen-year string of criminal activity, which included several burglaries and an aggravated assault on a police officer. Due to his criminal record, Defendant admitted to meeting the statutory requirements for a habitual offender enhancement by having three or more prior felony convictions, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 31-18-17(C) (1983) (amended2003). Atthe guilty plea proceeding, the district court noted that “[Defendant understands the range of possible sentence for the offenses charged, from a suspended sentence to a maximum of nine (9) years imprisonment plus eight (8) years enhancement for [the hjabitual [o]ffender [enhancement plus] aparóle term of two (2) years,” should the court impose confinement.
{3} At the sentencing hearing on April 25, 1988, the district court ordered Defendant to serve nine years for the escape charge, two of which were to be suspended, plus an additional eight years for the habitual offender enhancement. Acknowledging defense counsel’s pleas for leniency, Defendant’s ancillary role in the escape (he was apparently used by the other escapees as a decoy), and the other escapees’ willingness to enter pleas in hopes that Defendant would receive a lighter sentence, the judge ordered the
[s]entences to run CONCURRENTLY with each other, but CONSECUTIVELY to the sentences [Defendant is now serving, (CR 36947 and 83-41 CR) for a total term of incarceration of eight (8) years, to be served concurrently to the last eight (8) years of VA 85-101, with a mandatory two (2) year period of parole to be served upon completion of the basic sentence.
In effect, Defendant received only two additional years of parole and no additional prison time for escaping from prison and being found a habitual offender. Despite the apparent leniency of the sentence, the State did not appeal the 1988 sentence, and Defendant began serving his remaining sentences concurrently with his newly-imposed sentence.
{4} Although calculations differ between the parties, there is no debate that Defendant would have been eligible for parole with good time deductions, sometime between the fall of 2006 and the fall of 2007. Near the completion of the 1988 sentence, after Defendant had served without further incident for eighteen years, the State filed a motion to correct Defendant’s illegal sentence on September 22, 2006.
{5} The State’s sudden interest, after almost two decades of inactivity, was reportedly pursuant to a system-wide audit by the Department of Corrections that was prompted by media scrutiny of several high-profile sentencing errors. After discovering Defendant’s sentencing error, the district court held an expedited hearing on the motion and ultimately found in favor of the State. The district court ordered Defendant’s sentence modified as follows: nine years on the escape charge, with all nine years suspended, eight years on the habitual offender enhancement to be run consecutive to the aggregate of Defendant’s prior sentences, and a mandatory parole term of two years. In short, the district court increased Defendant’s prison sentence by eight years — the least amount required to correct the illegality.
{6} Defense counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal, requesting a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel for late filing and a review of the delayed sentencing increase. Because the underlying conviction was pursuant to a guilty plea, this Court could not presume ineffective assistance of counsel and instead remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Defendant’s trial attorney’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Anticipating the case would return, this Court also instructed the parties to submit supplemental briefs on “whether the State was barred by the time requirements in Rule 5-801 . . . from filing the motion to correct Defendant’s illegal sentence.” On remand, the district court promptly found ineffective assistance of counsel for the late filing of the notice of appeal, and the parties returned to this Court with supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional issue. We now review the parties’ arguments and render our decision.
ILLEGALITY OF 1988 SENTENCE
{7} As a preliminary matter, we explain how Defendant’s 1988 sentence was illegal. The district court was required to sentence Defendant according to NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-21 (A) (1977), for committing a felony while incarcerated and enhance that sentence according to Section 31-18-17(C) for his status as a habitual offender. The district court erred in its application of both sections.
{8} Section 31-18-21(A) dictates that “the sentence imposed shall be consecutive to the sentence being served}.]” The phrase “sentence being served” has been interpreted by State v. Davis to “mean}] sentences in the aggregate, and, pursuant to statute, all sentences imposed upon [a defendant [while incarcerated] must run consecutive to the total of his combined sentences.”
{9} Defendant argues that the 2003 interpretation in Davis cannot apply retroactively to affect Defendant’s 1988 sentence, which he claims was a rational interpretation of the statute before Davis. Defendant’s argument is unavailing. “An appellate court’s consideration of whether a rule should be retroactively or prospectively applied is invoked only when the rule at issue is in fact a new rule.” State v. Mascareñas,
{10} The district court also misapplied Section 31-18-17(C), which directs that a habitual offender with three or more felony convictions shall have “his basic sentence ... increased by eight years” and the increase “shall not be suspended or deferred.” The district court specifically ordered the underlying basic sentence and the enhancement “to run CONCURRENTLY with each other,” in direct conflict with the statutory mandate. See State v. Mayberry,
JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS OF RULE 5-801(A)
{11} We begin with an analysis of a district court’s jurisdiction under Rule 5-801(A), “Correction of sentence.” We review de novo the legal “question of whether a trial court has jurisdiction in a particular case.” Smith v. City of Santa Fe,
{12} “We apply the same rules of construction to procedural rules adopted by the Supreme Court as we do to statutes.” State v. Miller,
Plain Language of Rule 5-801(A)
{13} Although neither party raises the issue, there could be some confusion as to which version of Rule 5-801(A) applies in this case. According to the compiler’s annotations, the 1989 amendment became “effective for cases filed in the district courts on or after August 1, 1989.” Rule 5-801, compiler’s annotations (1989) (emphasis added). Defendant’s escape case was filed in the district court in 1988. It would appear then that Defendant’s case should be governed by the version of Rule 5-801(A) thatpre-dated the 1989 amendment. But the 1986 Supreme Court order adopting the previous amendment to the rule suggests otherwise. When the Supreme Court adopted the 1986 amendment, Chief Justice William Riordan annotated the order to clarify that the amendments “shall apply to all post conviction motions filed after” March 1, 1986. In re Amendment of Rules 57 and 57.1, Rules of Dist. Ct. Crim. P. (Feb. 10,1986) (emphasis added). The Rules Committee did not distinguish between the manner of application of the 1986 amendment and that of the 1989 amendment. Rule 5-801 (1989) (“As amended, effective March 1, 1986, and August 1, 1989.”). Accordingly, we apply the current Rule 5-801 (A), as amended through 1989, to post-conviction motions filed in the district courts on or after August 1, 1989. Because the State filed a post-conviction motion in 2006 pursuant to Rule 5-8 01 (A), we apply the current version of Rule 5-801(A) to Defendant, despite the fact that his underlying criminal case was originally filed prior to August 1, 1989.
{14} The current version of Rule 5-801(A) reads:
A. Correction of sentence. The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time pursuant to Rule 5-802 NMRA and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided by this rule for the reduction of sentence.
{15} Rule 5-802(A) “governs the procedure for filing a writ of habeas corpus by persons in custody or under restraint.” While it is clear from the face of Rule 5-801(A) that the district court has indefinite jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences pursuant to defendant-based writ of habeas corpus under Rule 5-802, it is not clear whether the court’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to a writ of habeas corpus and is meant to exclude state-based motions altogether. Defendant argues that Rule 5-801(A) should be read as a strict limitation under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and thus the State’s 2006 motion under the Rule should be barred. State ex rel. King v. Lyons,
{16} To the extent the language is ambiguous, we considerprinciples of statutory construction to determine the rule’s meaning. Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
History of Rule 5-801(A)
{17} Interpreting Rule 5-801(A) in the context of its history and background, it is apparent that the Rules Committee intended to strictly limit the district court’s jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences to only habeas corpus-based motions under Rule 5-802. Rule 5-801 (A) was adopted based on Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and it has closely tracked the history and background of the federal rule, which has clearly sought to curtail federal district court jurisdiction over correction of illegal sentences. Additionally, the historical amendments to Rule 5-8 01 (A) evidence a clear effort to limit district court jurisdiction in this arena, favoring appellate and habeas corpus review of illegal sentences over unlimited district court jurisdiction.
{18} Rule 5-801(A) was originally numbered as Rule 57.1 prior to the 1986 recompilation and was adopted in 1980 to be “substantially the same as Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Rule 5-801 committee commentary (1980). Because our courts have routinely relied on federal case law and related legislative history when interpreting similar New Mexico rules, we provide a summary ofthe history of federal Rule 35. State v. Martinez,
{19} Despite the principle’s deep common law roots, it was nonetheless codified because a related principle had been called into question. Duggins,
{20} Following the federal lead, New Mexico adopted Rule 57.1 in 1980 to be virtually identical to federal Rule 35, thereby codifying existing New Mexico common law. In New Mexico, as in the federal system, the judiciary had interpreted its sentencing authority, pursuant to the Legislature’s many sentencing statutes, as including an inherent jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences. See State v. Peters,
{21} Four years after New M exico decided to adopt federal Rule 35, the United States Congress repealed the indefinite jurisdiction principle embodied in Rule 35(a) altogether. As part of a sweeping reform of the criminal justice system, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which sought in large part to make prisoner release dates more certain and sentences imposed in the public forum more final. S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 56 (1984), as reprinted, in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3239; see also United States v. Cook,
{22} In order to accomplish those goals, Congress repealed long-standing Rule 35(a), thereby stripping the federal district courts of their indefinite jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences. United States v. Jordan,
{23} Sixteen months after Congress repealed Rule 35(a) and curtailed federal district court jurisdiction over illegal sentences, New Mexico followed suit. On February 10, 1986, despite Rule 57.1(a)’s reliance on long-standing principles of common law, the New Mexico Supreme Court, by its order, adopted the recommendation of the Rules Committee to repeal 57.1(a), which had previously allowed for indefinite jurisdiction over illegal sentences. In the very same order, the New Mexico Supreme Court transformed former Rule 57 (Post-conviction motions) to become Rule 57 (Habeas corpus). As part of its comprehensive overhaul of Rule 57 (later recompiled as Rule 5-802), the Supreme Court codified the procedure for filing writs of habeas corpus and explicitly opened that avenue for review of “illegal” sentences under the scope of the rule. Rule 5-802(A) (1986). With respect to appellate review of illegal sentences, it was unnecessary to enact another rule because New Mexico appellate courts had jurisdiction to review sentences under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and NMSA 1978, Section 34-5-8(A)(3) (1983), and had previously construed Rule 12-216 as allowing parties to challenge the legality of a sentence for the first time on appeal. State v. Crespin,
{24} Since the amendments of 1984, federal case law and legislation have made clear that it was Congress’s specific intent to remove any historical common law jurisdiction the federal district courts once enjoyed with respect to correction of illegal sentences. United States v. Washington,
{25} Similarly, New Mexico has also sought to clarify the scope of Rule 5-801 since its 1986 repeal of Rule 57.1(a). In 1989, the New Mexico Supreme Court enacted a final amendment to Rule 5-801(A) that re-inserted original Rule 57.1(a) language— “[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time” — with an important limitation — “pursuant to Rule 5-802[.]”
{26} In Hayes v. State,
{27} As is apparent from the historical analysis, New Mexico has closely tracked federal Rule 35(a) from adoption, through repeal, to its most current form. Additionally, New Mexico continually narrowed the scope of Rule 5-8 01 (A) over time by first repealing and then clarifying its intended narrow reach. Given the history of the New Mexico rule, in conjunction with its federal counterpart, the current version of Rule 5-801(A) reflects a clear intent to strictly limit the district court’s jurisdiction to habeas corpus proceedings to correct an illegal sentence.
INHERENT DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION
{28} We take time to address the State’s argument that the district court’s authority to correct illegal sentences stems not from Rule 5-801(A), but “from the sentencing authority vested to the trial court by statute,” as recognized by the common law. See Crespin,
{29} We remain aware of our longstanding rule that “only if a statute so provides with express language or necessary implication will New Mexico courts be deprived of their inherent equitable powers.” Sims v. Sims,
{30} While not expressly stated, we nevertheless hold that the Rules Committee meant to defeat the broad jurisdiction embodied in the common law by repeatedly narrowing Rule 5-801(A). Were we to conclude otherwise, as the State requests, it would necessarily require one of two constructions: (1) Rule 5-801(A) only applies to defendants, or (2) Rule 5-801(A) is intended as mere guidance. Both constructions render Rule 5-801(A) itself either absurd or superfluous, or make its amendments mere nullities.
{31} If we were to read the rule as applying only to defendants, we would give the State a procedural advantage in that defendants would be required to meet all the requirements of habeas corpus under Rule 5-802, while the State would need only file a simple motion to correct an illegal sentence. This approach would certainly contradict the thrust of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which was, in part, to make sentencing more transparent and fair. Such a reading would also contradict the apparent comprehensive nature of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the district courts, in which Rule 5-801(A) is embedded. The very first provision of the Rules states that “[tjhese rules govern the procedure in the district courts of New Mexico in all criminal proceedings.” Rule 5-101 NMRA (emphasis added). Rule 5-801 is entitled “Modification of sentence,” and Subsection (A) is entitled “Correction of sentence.” There is no explicit indication in any of those sources that Rule 5-801(A) was meant to apply only to defendants or except the State from its seemingly broad reach. It would be absurd, absent some indication otherwise, to construe Rule 5-801(A) as only applying to defendants, simply because a common law principle existed prior to the rule’s adoption and subsequent repeal. State v. Nick.,
{32} Similarly, we cannot conclude that Rule 5-801(A) is meant as mere guidance. Although such a construction would resolve the unfairness to defendants of the binding construction, it would contradict the application of all the Rules of Criminal Procedure. As is mentioned above, the rules are meant to govern, not guide, procedure. Furthermore, such a reading would render Rule 5-801(A) and its previous iterations and amendments superfluous and nullities. State v. Rivera,
SEPARATION OF POWERS
{33} We next explain why our interpretation ofRule 5-801(A), which serves to define, explicitly for defendants and implicitly for the State, the procedure to obtain review of illegal sentences does not violate separation of powers. We recognize that “one branch of the state government may not exercise powers and duties belonging to another,” State ex rel. State Corp. Comm’n v. McCulloh,
{34} The State essentially argues that our interpretation ofRule 5-801(A), by limiting the procedure by which the State can obtain review of an illegal sentence, abridges the State’s substantive right to a particular sentence mandated by the Legislature. See NMSA 1978, § 38-l-l(A) (1966) (stating that New Mexico Supreme Court rules “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant”). We disagree that Rule 5-801 (A) has such an affect and note that a similar argument was rejected by this Court in State v. Montoya,
{35} In Montoya, the state argued that the time limits requiring dismissal of probation revocation cases under Rule 5-805(H) abridged the state’s substantive right to pursue probation revocations under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-15(1989), and thereby violated separation of powers. Montoya,
{36} The Supreme Court’s procedural choice, with respect to how a request to correct illegal sentences should be presented to the district courts, does not abridge substantive sentencing rights. Rather Rule 5-801(A), by restricting district court jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences, “merely avoids delay in the exercise of such rights.” Montoya,
EFFECT ON NEW MEXICO PRECEDENT
{37} As a final matter, we consider the effect of Rule 5-801(A), as interpreted by this Court. We recognize today that Rule 5-801(A), as amended by the Supreme Court, abrogated the common law principle that a district court has inherent and unlimited jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences. Although the abrogated principle has been cited occasionally since its demise in 1986, only one case in that time has actually relied on the principle in reaching its holding. Compare Abril,
{38} In Abril, the district court corrected its omission of a serious violent offense enhancement five days after it entered its final written sentencing order. Citing dicta from Aragon, the Court reasoned that “[wjhere a sentence lacks a statutorily-mandated provision, the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence by adding the omitted term.” Abril,
CONCLUSION
{39} Based on our analysis of Rule 5-801(A), the district court did not have jurisdiction to correct Defendant’s illegal sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision correcting Defendant’s sentence and remand for reinstatement of Defendant’s 1988 sentence and denial of the State’s motion.
{40} IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: